Hari Om @ Hari Om Sharma v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Mar 2026
- Bench
- SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, present petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. IX r. 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. A perusal of the file shows that the civil suit filed by the respondents was dismissed in default not because of any mistake on the part of the respondents but due to inadvertent mistake committed by the Reader of the Court. A perusal of…
Judgment
Present : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) ****
The present petition has been filed for setting aside order dated
29.05.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of restoration order dated 06.02.2025 was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that application filed by the petitioner was wrongly dismissed ignoring the mandatory provision of Order IX Rule 9(2) CPC, whereby notice is required to be given to the respondents in case the suit which was dismissed in default is to be restored.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, has rightly allowed the VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.03.17 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6282-2025 (O&M) -2- application filed by the respondents for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed in default.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance.
Operative part
A perusal of the file shows that the civil suit filed by the respondents was dismissed in default not because of any mistake on the part of the respondents but due to inadvertent mistake committed by the Reader of the Court. A perusal of the zimini order dated 06.02.2025 shows that application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC was filed by the respondents, wherein it was submitted that the suit was inadvertently dismissed on the previous date despite the applicants being present in Court. It has been specifically observed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, that due to inadvertent error and the heavy workload, the presence was not marked by the Court Reader. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to mandate of issuance of notice under Order IX Rule 9(2) CPC is concerned, the same would not be applicable in the case of the respondents since it is applicable in cases of non-appearance of the parties, whereas, the present case is admittedly one where learned counsel for the respondents was very much present in Court and due to mistake on the part of the Court Reader, his presence could not be marked. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.03.17 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6282-2025 (O&M) -3- In view of the above, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE
12.03.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.03.17 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, present petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. IX r. 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 12 Mar 2026. The bench was SUDEEPTI SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.